Cheaper Student Loans–A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come

When Victor Hugo claimed that all the world’s armies are powerless against an idea whose time has come, he probably had in mind good ideas. But the time can come for a bad idea also. Low-cost student loans, embraced by President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressional leaders of both parties, is a bad idea. Students and prospective students love the prospect of paying less for college, and so do their parents. Moreover, some economists say that investing more in educating youngsters from low-income families will increase the ability of American workers to compete in the global marketplace.

But students don’t need cheaper loans. What they need are loans that give them an incentive to get good enough college educations to qualify for jobs – well-paying jobs that enable them to pay off their loans. The flaw in the federal guaranteed student-loan program – from its beginning in 1965 – has been its exclusive concern with whether or not students came from families with low-incomes, not whether loans would help launch careers.

Consequently, to reform the federal student-loan program, the Department of Education should start targeting student loans: giving cheaper loans, not to every student from low-income families, but to needy students with good prospects for repaying the loans they take out. Some loans should continue at a 6.8 per cent interest rate, as Congress originally planned in a 2007 law; some will charge 3.4 per cent or even less. Differential loan rates have two advantages. First, they would reduce student defaults and thereby reduce not only the credit problems that defaulting students get into (but also the cost of these defaults to American taxpayers). More importantly, a side effect of targeted loans would be to improve the educational atmosphere of American colleges.

The Helpful Side Effects of Good Loans

When students know that the interest rates on their student-loans are at stake every year, they are more likely to choose to pay attention in class and do assigned reading, less likely to spend long weekends drunk or taking “recreational” drugs, and less likely to accumulate bad credit ratings by maxing out their limits on several credit cards on balances they cannot pay. Financial incentives surely will concentrate the minds of some students. Students don’t need cheaper loans; they need better educations.

Living beyond one’s means is a very old practice. That is why imprisonment for debt – and even enslavement for debt – occurred in Roman society as well as in other societies of the Ancient World. Indeed, As recently as the mid-nineteenth century, young British aristocrats, imprisoned in Fleet Debtors Prison for running up debts, waited for parents or friends to take pity on them and pay off their creditors. But imprisonment for debt is now rare, partly because debt has become ubiquitous. And today — in modern societies – nearly everyone is in debt. The question in affluent societies is not whether to live beyond one’s current means, only whether one’s future means will make repayment possible.

Like adults, teenagers obtain credit cards, frequently several cards in order to maximize their ability to buy things they want that they cannot currently afford. They often fail to realize that, if the debts are to be repaid, high interest rates make credit card debt very expensive. So, if teenagers want to attend college, they already know intellectually that borrowing the money to pay tuition and living expenses is a possibility. Student loans extend practices that they and their parents have already been doing.

One difference, however, differentiates student loans for higher education from credit card debt. The federal government guarantees repayment of many student loans. Therefore, each loan default on federally guaranteed loans eventually adds to the national deficit. Initially, the cost of defaulted loans was negligible because the federal loan portfolio was small and the majority of graduates were paying their loans off. However, defaulted student loans have become more costly and are receiving more attention in the media. The Department of Education announced on September 13, 2011, that the overall default rate for federally guaranteed student loans had risen to 8.8 percent for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2010, up from 7 percent the previous year. This was the highest default rate since 1997.

Tip of the Iceberg

The 8.8 percent rate of defaults is only the tip of the default iceberg because this number refers to the 320,000 graduates who defaulted within two years of their graduation, when their first payments became due. It did not anticipate how many of the 3.6 million graduates from that cohort of students who graduated two years earlier with outstanding student loans would default later. Experience suggests that many would – with this result: postponed marriages and moving back with parents. Longitudinal studies of student borrowers show that defaults peak in the fourth year after payments begin to be required and continue in subsequent years. Estimates are that about 40 percent of student borrowers will default before they pay off their loans or die. This will happen despite Department of Education efforts to prevent students from falling into the default category by postponing the repayment requirement through deferments or forbearance mechanisms. Students can also try to avoid defaults by enrolling in graduate or additional undergraduate programs because the repayment requirement begins only when students are out of school, but this merely postpones the repayment obligation – and increases the load of student debt. Students must eventually either get jobs to enable them to start repaying their student loans or default.

By 2012, students and former students had accumulated debts of more than $1 trillion on their student loans, more than the total of American credit card debt. Defaults increased in 2011 and 2012 as a higher proportion of college graduates failed to get jobs. Unfortunately, current college graduates are finding it more difficult to get jobs than college graduates were four or five years ago. One reason they can’t find jobs is the weak economy, but it is also due to a fatal flaw in the student loan program that was present from its beginning in 1965. Instead of giving students loans to promote their educational commitment and effort, the federal student loan program has, from its beginning, given educationally promiscuous student loans.

As with sub-prime mortgages given by Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and banks, the Department of Education and Sallie Maes gave students loans without scrutinizing their ability to repay them. Congress hadn’t asked them to. This design flaw will lead to larger contributions to the deficit from defaults in future years unless Congress requires credit worthiness for students receiving federally guaranteed student loans.

When Congress originally decided to help youngsters from low-income families go to college, it provided Pell grants. Loans were an afterthought. Pell grants were intended to give youngsters from such families the opportunity to prepare at college for well-paid, interesting careers. Congress did not anticipate how popular Pell grants would become and how much they would cost. In 2009-2010, 7.7 million students received $28.2 billion in Pell grants (plus the administrative cost of about $4 billion to administer this large program). Pell grants add to the deficit in the year they are given out but not to future deficits because they do not have to be repaid. Congress limited the maximum size of Pell grants to individual students, although it gradually increased that limit as college costs rose. It was $5,350 for the academic year 2009-2010, $5,550 for 2010-2011, and $5,710 for 2011-2012. Limiting the size of Pell grants was politically necessary because bigger grants would have been very expensive.

Pell grants did not cover rising college expenses, and Congress established various guaranteed loan programs (beginning with Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965) as supplementary student aid for college costs. Loans rather than grants now comprise three-quarters of federal student aid. Unlike grants, student loans must be repaid after graduation or after leaving school without graduating–along with accrued interest–regardless of whether their educations help former students get jobs. Guaranteed student loans have always required only an assessment of economic disadvantage, never the ability to repay student loans; graduates who major in having fun–as many college students may do, especially in “party schools”– may fail to learn enough to get jobs afterwards, especially well-paying jobs.

Congress should require for federally guaranteed student loans evidence of ability to repay the loans by examining students’ academic records, credit histories, and other criteria of credit-worthiness. This change would treat student loans as risky investments, which they are, and ensure that they are given only to student borrowers with a good chance of being able to repay them. Needy college students would still be eligible for Pell and other college grants. Like loans, grants have never imposed a requirement of credit worthiness.

The prospect of costlier loans sounds like a practical way for the United States to teach students to live within their means. Again, students need stronger educational preparation for the job market, not cheaper loans.

Jackson Toby is professor of sociology emeritus at Rutgers University, where he was director of the Institute for Criminological Research. He is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

9 thoughts on “Cheaper Student Loans–A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come”

Sorry, but you can’t. The only type of student loans that do not rqreiue a co-signer are federal loans. All private loans rqreiue co-signers now. You will need to either find a co-signer, go to a cheaper school or take a semester off to save some money. Sorry.

@NC Law – Agreed, and thank goodness. A degree in Gender Studies is probably interesting but offers little in the way of employment prospects. I would much rather my government give financial support to a 4.0 GPA HS graduate pursuing engineering than a 2.5 who wants to major in Liberal Arts. College is absolutely not for everyone, and until this country realizes that vocational high school should be the norm rather than the exception, we are in for a world of hurt. Disclaimer: I came from a low income family and received a bachelor’s in electrical engineering. I was able to buy a car, get married, get a mortgage, buy a house, and pay off $82K in student loans in 6 years.

I think it is not only ( or so much) that students do not *want* to learn in College – and thus pay off their loans with the income from higher skills – as it is that they are not ABLE to learn. This can be because they are unprepared by their (dreadful) high school (non) education. Or it can be because they are too young and lack the training in self-discipline to maintain learning in the face of social distractions. Or it can just be (and this is the unspeakable prospect) that a given student may not have the mental capacity to learn the material on a college level. The sad truth is that not everyone *should* go to college at 18. Some perhaps not ever. Whatever politicians may find it popular to suggest.

If the purpose of the program is to help provide economic opportunity to people from families with limited income, then it would make sense to focus the money on those programs of study that actually lead to economic opportunity (ie, education that is related to actual job opportunities, and students who have a high probablity of actually getting a degree). If the purpose of the program is to provide a pool of money to provide corporate welfare to educational establishments which would otherwise have trouble making it in a competitive environment, and at the same time remove people from the workforce for extended periods of time, it makes more sense to give money to anyone who asks for it to study anything they want regardless of whether it is likely to lead to a marketable degree, so long as they do that study as a student at an “approved” institution. From that analysis, it seems pretty clear what the plan is…

The premise of the article is quite sound, but the solution presented overlooks the source of the problem – the Federal guarantee. When the Federal government guarantees the repayment of a student’s loan, the lending institution has no concern as to the credit-worthiness. Your proposed “high” and “low” interest rates are just as arbitrary as the interest rates the government currently controls. By removing the federal guarantee, lending institutions would be forced to assess each application on its merits, and would be in a better position to establish the appropriate interest rates. These rates will be set by underwriters that will cull information about the prospects of the students graduating from the proposed program of study, and the earnng power of the students if and when they do graduate. This may mean fewer college attendees, but given the crushing debt that many students take on by attending a $50,000.00 per year college only to find that they have engaged in an area of study that has a high-end starting salary of less than $25,000.00 (and that they probably will not secure that starting salary until 1 or more years after graduation), that would not be a tragic result. Fewer applications/prospective students would mean less demand for a college education. When demand drops, prices drop. Colleges and Universities may at long last be forced to focus on education as opposed to indoctirnation and credential padding.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Please! Support Our Work and DONATE

Minding the Campus, the website written mostly by courageous professors who choose to educate rather than proselytize students to their world view, needs your help. Even a small donation makes a big difference. Click here to donate now.

Notable

Western Civilization = White Supremacy

New York City school administrators have been taught that pillars of Western Civilization such as objectivity, individualism, and even belief in the written word all are examples of … white supremacy, theNew York Post reports.

A slide presentation obtained by the Post from the workshop “Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change” includes claims that a belief in an “ultimate truth” (objectivity) leads to a dismissal of “alternate viewpoints or emotions” as “bad” (this is straight out of the critical race theory playbook), and that emphasis on the written word overlooks the “ability to relate to others” and leads to “teaching that there is only ‘one right way’ to do something.”

Other “hallmarks” of white supremacy include a “sense of urgency,” “quantity over quality,” and “perfectionism.” Read more at The College Fix

The Civility Problem

Maybe a few courses on how to create a civil society would help America's so-called "social warriors" learn how to deal with their fellow men and women. Let's start with Amherst College in Massachusetts, where former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to address the ongoing issue of free speech on campus. Campus Reform reports that Sessions got a dose of today's SJW tactics when a stinkbomb was set off before he went on stage. Then, a walkout was staged by a gay pride group punctuating the assault on the former A.G. Stinkbombs? What is this, 7th grade?

Studying 'Angry White Males'

The University of Kansas has approved a course called “angry white male studies,” open to all students willing to take a women’s studies course first. The course on white males will explore recent changes in demographics since the 1950s. Republican Congressman Ron Estes took a dim view, arguing that ”KU is offering a class that divides the student population and could pose a TitleIX violation by creating a hostile campus movement based on gender.” The course will be taught by Christopher Forth, who focuses on gender, fat-shaming, and masculinity.

Erasing White Men from Politics

Believing that courses on American political thought are too fixated on white males, Professor Chad Shomura of the University of Colorado at Denver has solved the problem by banning discussion of white men in his course on the nation’s political thought. This means nothing from Washington, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Rousseau or any of the pre-Obama presidents. Discussion of the Hillary Clinton race for the presidency in 2016 is allowed, but how she managed to lose while apparently “running unopposed” is unclear.

No Free Speech: Heckler Cancels Another Student Meeting

Last week, a group of at least 4 Portland State University police officers stood by and declined to intervene as a heckler with a cowbell single-handedly canceled a College Republicans meeting. This is the second time in 2019 that PSU allowed hecklers or would-be hecklers to shut down campus expression — and the second time the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has demanded the university adhere to its First Amendment obligations. FIRE first wrote to the university Feb. 18 after PSU’s law enforcement unilaterally canceled a meeting of a socialist student group after the founder of the group Patriot Prayer said he would show up.

Be Careful What You Wish For on Social Programs

Nathan Glazer, the last of a group of famous neocon social scientists, died at the age of 95 on January 19 at his home in Cambridge, Mass. (He resisted the label “neocon.”) Glazer consistently warned that vast government plans to improve the lives of the poor often come to grief or create new problems of their own. “The evaluations of the specifics of the first ten years after the launching of (the War on Poverty) confirm that nothing worked and in particular, nothing in education worked.” He concluded that the family was the key institution to positive social change and that rights are inherent in individuals, not groups. The article here by Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute ran in 2011 when President Obama planned an extension of the War on Poverty.

Reader Letter of the Week

There are two real dangers to this anti-white mindset that its proponents don’t seem to comprehend.

First, a minority of foolish and morally bankrupt white people can, will, and do buy all the social justice arguments and place themselves on the other side. That’s how you get white nationalist groups who say, “Yes, it is a power struggle between whites and everyone else, and we intend to come out on top.”

Second, and far more serious, the vast majority of white people who still hold to the tenets of individualism and equality will see the social justice warriors as a real and direct threat to their safety, culture, and future and react accordingly. As when we fought the Nazis and the Communists, there’s no need to agree with an enemy or even hold him in any regard as serious to recognize him and defeat him.

Either way, the result is division, civil unrest, and even war. Unfortunately, in this case, the SJWs have created a landscape in which there is no middle ground. It is one side or the other. The Feminists will fall first because there is no way to have a serious conflict between the sexes, and women are immensely practical creatures. But the other groups will find themselves in a very nasty position of facing a frightened and angry majority that has no intention of offering itself up for sacrifice. And when they mobilize, the “battle” won’t be metaphorical.

David S. Zondy

Write for MTC

Interested in writing for us?

Calling all professors, college newspaper reporters and editors who believe in diversity of thought as well as culture and ethnicity. Minding the Campus aims to expose today’s single lane thought highway at today’s universities and find solutions to the growing monoculture of ideas that silences the contrarians. MTC also has a commitment to due process and reports on how accusations of sexual assault on campus can convict a student who was denied legal representation. If you want to know more, please click here to read more.